Grifters, cynics, and true believers: The family tree of vaccine opponents



Stanley Plotkin, 93, was instrumental in developing a number of vaccines over the course of his career. He recently said that he’s “beginning to regret having lived so long—because we’re going downhill.” How could we possibly have gotten here?

Maybe we’ve always been here. It turns out that the anti-vaccine arguments currently flooding the Internet have been around for as long as vaccines have. In his new book A Pox on Fools, Thomas Levenson breaks them down into three categories, as made clear in the book’s subtitle: “The True Believers, Grifters, and Cynics Who Convinced Us to Reject Vaccines.” The accusations these people levy against vaccines can just as easily be used to categorize the arguments themselves: They are wrong, they are bad, and they are intolerable.

Wrong

As Levenson tells it, in the early 18th century, a couple of forward-thinking Westerners learned about inoculations against smallpox from Ottoman women and an enslaved African. At that point, infectious disease was by far the leading cause of death, as it had been forever. In the 19th century, roughly 40 percent of babies died of infection before they turned 5.

(This is why the average lifespan back then was so low. It wasn’t that people didn’t live past their 30s; if they survived childhood, they largely did. It’s just that so, so many small children died that they dragged the average way down.)

When smallpox epidemics broke out in London and Boston in 1721, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu and Cotton Mather initiated inoculation campaigns in their respective cities. Inoculation involved taking pus from a pock of someone with a not-very-severe case of smallpox, making a cut in the arm of the person to be inoculated, and rubbing the pus into the cut.

There was an immediate backlash. It was morally wrong, some claimed, to interfere with the divine ordination of who would sicken and die and who would not. Only God had that ability, and to thwart it was to defy God’s will. It was hubris and blasphemy. Levenson highlights how the subtext of this attitude was that contracting a highly infectious disease was divine punishment for sin and that the only way to avoid disease was to live a virtuous life.



Source link

  • Related Posts

    AI grifters are creating fake Black people to sell Shein junk

    Aliyah, a light-skinned Black woman dressed in country-western gear, is struggling to sell metal buckles she handmade on TikTok. In a video for the social media platform from March, she…

    ‘Backrooms’ Takes You Deeper Inside the Internet’s Most Uncanny Horror Myth

    The 20-year-old filmmaker Kane Parsons has risen to the top so fast that he’s had zero time to process how far he’s come. “It’s been go, go, go,” Parsons tells…

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    You Missed

    AI grifters are creating fake Black people to sell Shein junk

    AI grifters are creating fake Black people to sell Shein junk

    Witcher Dev’s Mysterious New Game With Saudi Arabia’s Scopely Is Not Releasing Soon

    Witcher Dev’s Mysterious New Game With Saudi Arabia’s Scopely Is Not Releasing Soon

    Kaia Gerber Wore the It Sunglasses Style of Summer 2026

    Kaia Gerber Wore the It Sunglasses Style of Summer 2026

    WHO chief visits Bunia, epicentre of the Ebola outbreak | Ebola

    WHO chief visits Bunia, epicentre of the Ebola outbreak | Ebola

    Leadership vote to be announced for B.C. Conservative Party after Rustad ouster

    Leadership vote to be announced for B.C. Conservative Party after Rustad ouster

    B.C. sport fishers brace for reconciliation-based salmon policy changes

    B.C. sport fishers brace for reconciliation-based salmon policy changes